Remains of Nazi victims found. Inc. gas chamber victim

[Dresden]

hermod said:

"12, sir"

Bingo!

[EtienneSC]

Robert Faurisson found evidence of a toxicological report by Professor René Fabre, Dean of the Pharmacy faculty at Paris, from December 1945 that cast doubt on the gassing part of this story. Despite this, Le Monde revived the story in 2013 in the context of a documentary.

This latest development seems to have made its way to the Telegraph from Le Monde of 19 July 2015:
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/07/19/des-restes-de-victimes-d-un-anatomiste-nazi-decouverts-a-strasbourg_4689200_3224.html
The investigator, Raphaël Toledano, has previously been involved with another documentary on the subject. Michel Cymès has also written about it in a book on Nazi doctors which helped revive interest in the story. As far as I am aware, they all ignore Faurisson's work.

[Hannover]

The investigator, Raphaël Toledano, has previously been involved with another documentary on the subject. Michel Cymès has also written about it in a book on Nazi doctors which helped revive interest in the story. As far as I am aware, they all ignore Faurisson's work.

As expected, they are profiting from the lie.
It's called "the holocaust Industry" for a reason.

And BTW, both are Zionist supremacist Jews, not unbiased investigators.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[borjastick]

Robert Faurisson found evidence of a toxicological report by Professor René Fabre, Dean of the Pharmacy faculty at Paris, from December 1945 that cast doubt on the gassing part of this story. Despite this, Le Monde revived the story in 2013 in the context of a documentary.

This latest development seems to have made its way to the Telegraph from Le Monde of 19 July 2015:
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/07/19/des-restes-de-victimes-d-un-anatomiste-nazi-decouverts-a-strasbourg_4689200_3224.html
The investigator, Raphaël Toledano, has previously been involved with another documentary on the subject. Michel Cymès has also written about it in a book on Nazi doctors which helped revive interest in the story. As far as I am aware, they all ignore Faurisson's work.

I don't agree with it at all but I suppose they have to ignore Faurisson's work. Otherwise they risk all sorts of unwelcome connections and suggestions.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Robert Faurisson found evidence of a toxicological report by Professor René Fabre, Dean of the Pharmacy faculty at Paris, from December 1945 that cast doubt on the gassing part of this story.

Does Faurisson actually quote the document which mentions Farbe's report in any of his French writings? As what he says about it in his various English writings is inviting confusion.

Faurisson has claimed that Fabre "had been charged with determining whether the bodies found at the Anatomy Institute in Strasbourg and thought to have been the bodies of people "gassed" at Struthof bore any traces of poison.", but he has only ever confirmed that no trace of hydrocyanic acid was found in them. What about other poisons?

In the course of the trial concerning the Struthof-Natzweiler camp, in Alsace, an expert study was in fact made of the “gas chamber” and of the “gassed” bodies (kept at the civilian hospital in Strasbourg), but in each case, Professor René Fabre, a toxicologist, found no traces of gas.

- The Second Leuchter Report, by Fred A. Leuchter, Robert Faurisson

The Gas Chamber at Struthof-Natzweiler (Alsace)

The LICRA accused me of having "without serious justification brushed aside a certain number of proofs previously accepted at national and international trials." In order to prove that, it asked that there be put into evidence the file put together by the French military court for the trial of the guards of the Struthof-Natzweiler concentration camp in Alsace.

[...]

In the same file from the French military court there was an expert report by Dr. Rene Fabre, Dean of the Faculty of Pharmacology in Paris. That file has disappeared but, thanks to another document, we know that Dr. Fabre had been charged with determining whether the bodies found at the Anatomy Institute in Strasbourg and thought to have been the bodies of people "gassed" at Struthof bore any traces of poison. The conclusion of that expert report had been negative. There was no trace of hydro-cyanic acid either in the bodies or in the scrapings from the alleged homicidal gas chamber, nor in the debris from it (jars W and X).

https://archive.org/stream/TheJournalOfHistoricalReviewVolume05Number2/TheJournalOfHistoricalReviewVolume06Number2-1985#page/n21/mode/2up

Only in one case had an autopsy report been done regarding gas chambers: "It was for the alleged gas chamber of Struthof-Natzweiler...in Alsace, part of France. Everybody can visit today a little room called 'gas chamber' and the French [inscription] says: 'In original state.' So, in December 1945...Professor René Fabre...toxicologist, Dean of the Faculty of Pharmacy of Paris, was asked to do a report about (1) the gas chamber itself; (2) about the bodies ... in the hospital of Strasbourg in the morgue and supposed to have been bodies of people killed in Struthof, and his answer was (1) about the description of the so-called gas chamber, no trace of [the] poison hydrocyanic acid and about the bod[ies], same conclusion. This report, very important, has disappeared." (29-8023) Faurisson knew about the Fabre autopsy report "because in the files of...military justice in Paris we have...another report of three doctors...in this report, the three doctors say that Professor René Fabre said that." (29-8024)

http://ihr.org/books/kulaszka/30faurisson.html

On December 1 st , 1945, Professeur René Fabre, Dean of the Pharmacology Faculty in Paris, concluded that the room had no traces of hydrocyanic acid and that the bodies of alleged gassed inmates in August 1943, kept in the morgue of an hospital in Strasbourg, had no traces of hydrocyanic acid. The expert's report classified in the files of the "Gendarmerie Militaire" disappeared but, thanks to another piece of evidence in those files, we know that such were the conclusions.

http://vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF950212.html

[Hannover]

Black Rabbit,
I see you avoided my numerous points and questions.

- Hannover

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Rabbit quoted;

Pressac has published [in The Struthof Album : Study of the Gassing at Natzweiler-Struthof of 86 Jews Whose Bodies Were to Constitute a Collection of Skeletons : A Photographic Document] two weekly reports concerning the camp strength, the first one covering the period of 7 through 14 August, the second one the period of 15 through 21 August. On 7 August, the column “Jews” has 90 persons, 30 of whom were registered as “deceased,” with another 57 deceased Jews for the following period, which means that between 7 and 21 August 87 Jews died. It would be extremely difficult to attribute these sudden deaths to a cause other than intentional killing,

- Mattogno, Inside the Gas Chambers, p.220

Yes, I saw that. Still nothing to prove they were murdered.
Assuming they really did come from Auschwitz, no proof for that either. Do you have that proof?

There's sufficient proof that they came from Auschwitz for world's premier revisionist, not to mention orthodox Holocaust authors. And I see in your subsequent post that you found some of the proof in Mattogno's article.

Perhaps you would like to argue for another location as from where else these Jews might have come from.

Always start at the beginning.

!?

But playing along, who is to say they weren't unknowingly infected with well documented Auschwitz typhus? Certainly makes more sense than to say they were 'murdered' without proof.

Not when considered along with the other documents quoted by Mattogno.

"Criminal Traces" Pressac? I mean come on, he's a charlatan, and easily shown as such.

Are you insinuating Pressac forged these reports? Do you have any evidence of that?

Rabbit:

What information is that, specifically?

Pressac's nonsense dispatched by Mattogno, the Kramer fiasco dispatched by Mattogno, the Schmaltz absurdities dispatched by Mattogno, numerous references and statements as to alleged letters debunked by Mattogno, 'construction' nonsense debunked by Mattogno.
I suggest you begin reading at page 207 of the cited Mattogno work.

Just to inform readers what, specifically, my question related to:

And then Mattogno presents information in the cited link which makes his claim of 'probable' gassing with phosgene preposterous.

What information is that, specifically?

Mattogno's analysis of Kramer's various confessions, and of Pressac and Schmaltz's studies, plus the various documents either or both cite, have little or nothing to do with Mattogno's thesis that the Jews were gassed with phosgene—which you've called "preposterous". I asked you what information it was that makes this thesis "preposterous", but perhaps I wasn't clear enough; I should have asked what is it in this information that makes it "preposterous". And instead of just summarising what information Mattogno discusses, you can this time actually provides us with a detailed argument of why Mattogno's phosgene gassings are "preposterous".

Rabbit:

Can you please document how Mattogno has done these things you claim.

Me? Mattogno has done it himself.

Just to inform readers what, specifically, my question related to:

IOW he is contradicting the very information he publishes and appears to be trying too hard to "do serious science". What's serious about ignoring the facts that he, himself has laid out.

Can you please document how Mattogno has done these things you claim.

Again, you've failed to back up your assertion.

And this by Mattogno in support of my position:

The Auschwitz Kalendarium mentions Professor Hirt for the last time under the date of 15 June 1943 in connection with the contents of the letter which Sievers wrote him on 21 June. No further documents exist on the subject of the transfer of the 86 or 87 Jews to Natzweiler (it is not clear why only 86 or 87 Jews out of those selected were sent to Natzweiler).
This means that one can only surmise that they came from Auschwitz. [??] This is corroborated at first sight by the fact that one of the corpses found [??] towards the end of the Second World War at the anatomical institute of Strasburg university bore the number 107969 on its lower left arm. At Auschwitz, this number had been assigned to the detainee Menachem Taffel. But if the photograph of this number is compared with an undoubtedly genuine Auschwitz tattoo, one can see that it was inscribed in ink or indelible pencil rather than as a tattoo

- Fake tattoo, OK then.

Mattogno's opinion that the tattoo doesn't look quite right, is *evidence* enough for you that its fake!

The supposed tattoo-fakers did well to choose that particular number, considering that it was a genuine number tattooed on a male Auschwitz inmate on March 13, 1943.

- And why can't we actually see photos and forensic reports of the alleged "corpses found towards the end of the Second World War at the Anatomical Institute of Strasburg University"?"

Wrong. The photos, which were submitted to the IMT as NO 807, and are easily found on the internet. Faurisson claims Professor René Fabre's report is missing from the records of the French military Struthof-Natzweiler trial; but the document signed by Profs. Piédelièvre, Simonin and Dr. Fourcade which mentions Fabre's findings is to be found with the trial records—again according to Faurisson. The trial records are in an archive in France, no doubt freely available to anyone who makes the effort to go see them.

- May I remind The Rabbit about the very problematic nature of the so called 'Auschwitz Kalendarium'.

Yes, go ahead.

- Do we have an actual copy of the 'letter which Sievers sent to Prof. Hirt' to review?

Presumably you're referring to the June 21, 1943, letter Mattogno mentions on page 222. But Sievers never wrote to Hirt on June 21, 1943, he wrote a letter to Eichmann that day; a letter which conforms with what Mattogno claims about it. Mattogno or his translator erred here it seems.

Sievers' June 21, 1943, letter to Eichammn was submitted to the IMT as NO-087; another document easily found on the internet.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Black Rabbit,
I see you avoided my numerous points and questions.

No I haven't, but my question to EtienneSC was more of a priority. I never learn anything from debating with you, and my posts frequently get deleted or edited.

[Moderator]

Black Rabbit,
I see you avoided my numerous points and questions.

No I haven't, but my question to EtienneSC was more of a priority. I never learn anything from debating with you, and my posts frequently get deleted or edited.

Nonsense.
Posts are deleted when / if you avoid the topic at hand, you use name calling, dodge direct challenges, ... like everyone else. Read our guidelines.

also see:
'name a specific "holocaust" topic censored / banned here'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7322
M1

[Hannover]

Oh good, Rabbit, I thought you disappeared.

There's sufficient proof that they came from Auschwitz for world's premier revisionist, not to mention orthodox Holocaust authors. And I see in your subsequent post that you found some of the proof in Mattogno's article.

Perhaps you would like to argue for another location as from where else these Jews might have come from.

What proof? I haven't seen any. Your appeal to authority carries no weight with me. Mattogno has erred here, it happens.

What "proof" did I find in Mattogno's article that show these alleged Jews came from Auschwitz. Please be specific.

"another location"? Jews came from where Jews were. If they came at all. Again, from the beginning,

Love the fake tattoo, don't you?

Hannover wrote:
But playing along, who is to say they weren't unknowingly infected with well documented Auschwitz typhus? Certainly makes more sense than to say they were 'murdered' without proof.

Rabbit wrote:
Not when considered along with the other documents quoted by Mattogno.

.
Right, "documents" no one can show us. Again, start at the beginning.

Rabbit wrote:
Are you insinuating Pressac forged these reports? Do you have any evidence of that?

I'm saying what I already said, Pressac is a proven charlatan. I would think you knew that. His opinions are worthless. He has what's called 'a credibilty problem'.

And hey, can you show us these "reports"?

Mattogno's analysis of Kramer's various confessions, and of Pressac and Schmaltz's studies, plus the various documents either or both cite, have little or nothing to do with Mattogno's thesis that the Jews were gassed with phosgene—which you've called "preposterous". I asked you what information it was that makes this thesis "preposterous", but perhaps I wasn't clear enough; I should have asked what is it in this information that makes it "preposterous". And instead of just summarising what information Mattogno discusses, you can this time actually provides us with a detailed argument of why Mattogno's phosgene gassings are "preposterous".

So why then are Kramer, Pressac, Schmaltz and other phantom "documents" included in Mattogno's work on alleged gassings at Natzweiler?
Mattogno is "preposterous" here because he does not back up what he claims. Not good.
Again, got "documents"?

BTW, there are no verifiable studies showing traces of phosgene on / in any of the laughable claimed human remains.
But hey, who needs science? Right, Rabbit?

Again, the claimed forensic reports which are no where to be found.

Great rabbit, you post a blurry picture of cadaver of unknown origin and unknown location with someone's French language typing below it. Now what about it backs up your position exactly?
Provenance, provenance, provenance.
And as Mattogno says, got to wonder about that 'tattoo'.

The supposed tattoo-fakers did well to choose that particular number, considering that it was a genuine number tattooed on a male Auschwitz inmate on March 13, 1943.

Indeed, very simple to do. Get a real number, use it. Again, you're ignoring Mattogno. I quoted what he said, you curiously ignored it.

Wrong. The photos, which were submitted to the IMT as NO 807, and are easily found on the internet. Faurisson claims Professor René Fabre's report is missing from the records of the French military Struthof-Natzweiler trial; but the document signed by Profs. Piédelièvre, Simonin and Dr. Fourcade which mentions Fabre's findings is to be found with the trial records—again according to Faurisson. The trial records are in an archive in France, no doubt freely available to anyone who makes the effort to go see them.

And I guess that's why you nor anyone else can show us these phantom pictures. You now say that there is a document which "mentions" some phantom "findings", but there is no actual "findings". Now that is laughable. This is truly getting better by the minute.
Show us what you claim exists, Rabbit.

Presumably you're referring to the June 21, 1943, letter Mattogno mentions on page 222. But Sievers never wrote to Hirt on June 21, 1943, he wrote a letter to Eichmann that day; a letter which conforms with what Mattogno claims about it. Mattogno or his translator erred here it seems.

Sievers' June 21, 1943, letter to Eichammn was submitted to the IMT as NO-087; another document easily found on the internet.

Again, show us the "easily found" actual letter, can you?
And why didn't Mattogno show us this "letter"?
Talk is cheap, Rabbit.

I say again:

- Fake tattoo, OK then.

- And why can't we actually see photos and forensic reports of the alleged "corpses found towards the end of the Second World War at the Anatomical Institute of Strasburg University"?

- May I remind The Rabbit about the very problematic nature of the so called 'Auschwitz Kalendarium'.

- Do we have an actual copy of the 'letter which Sievers sent to Prof. Hirt' to review?

- Yet we see no such verified 'Jewish' body parts and we see no "judicial autopsy" report. Nothing.

- Any found body parts could have an endless number of explanations. Of course human parts are quite common, normal in research institutions, stored in jars, etc.

- A claimed mass murder, but all unverified physical remains are hidden away from prying eyes, legally required procedures are never shown to have been completed.

- Note that the mentioned 'jars containing autopsy samples' were never introduced into any criminal trial proceedings. The results of that claimed autopsy were not published, the alleged contents were never shown. Then there is no proof offered by them that the alleged Struthof gassings occurred.

-Why aren't the 'labels with registration numbers' shown? In fact, why aren't all the jars set out and made available for scrutiny?

-Instead, everything is given to a Jewish organization to hide away, of course.

Cheers, Hannover

[hermod]

What seems strange for an anthropological collection is the complete lack of juvenile specimens in the 'purchase order'. No desire to study and display the skulls of Judeo-Bolshevik children and infants? Why?

[EtienneSC]

Does Faurisson actually quote the document which mentions Farbe's report in any of his French writings? As what he says about it in his various English writings is inviting confusion.

Yes. He had access to the records of the Gendarmerie and Military Justice on Struthof in 1980 as a result of a trial against him. He describes them and cites the references to Fabre directly in Ecrits révisionnistes Vol 4. He says that there is only a phrase, indicating that there was no trace of HCn in scrapings from the chimney of the alleged gas chamber, or in the hospital or in the human remains (page 395). He is more forthcoming later (pages 1552-53). He had sight of the documents along with a lawyer, Pierre Guillaume and J-C Pressac between March and June 1980. LICRA also had access. Fabre's report was missing. The three medical staff cited wished to dispute Fabre's conclusions and therefore describe them. They said:

In the internal organs kept in preserving fluid (alcohol and formalin) and submitted for analysis, no volatile fluids and in particular HCn was detected."
[Box 1, 96B, page 61 - this is apparently a quote from Fabre.]

"The negative conclusions of Professor Fabre's expert report do not challenge the possibility and even the high probability of poisoning by HCn."
[Same, page 67 - i.e. they disagree with Fabre, explaining that his test would only detect HCn at a dosage greater than 6 milligrams.]

The above are in quotation marks with page references. There is some further description along the lines you cite. He notes that there was no finding of a homicidal gas chamber in the Metz trial of 1952 or Lyon trial of 1954 of the Struthof doctors.

Faurisson has claimed that Fabre "had been charged with determining whether the bodies found at the Anatomy Institute in Strasbourg and thought to have been the bodies of people "gassed" at Struthof bore any traces of poison.", but he has only ever confirmed that no trace of hydrocyanic acid was found in them. What about other poisons?

I suppose "other volatile fluids" is a bit vague, but it seems there was some testing for poisons other than HCn.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

@ EtienneSC

That's very interesting.

Thanks a lot for looking it up, translating it, and the explanations.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Oh good, Rabbit, I thought you disappeared.

Effectively I will after this final response to you on this topic. I'm wasting my time arguing with you. Any questions I ask below are purely rhetorical.

What proof? I haven't seen any. Your appeal to authority carries no weight with me. Mattogno has erred here, it happens.

What "proof" did I find in Mattogno's article that show these alleged Jews came from Auschwitz. Please be specific.

A - There was no appeal to authority
B - Learn what an Appeal to Authority is
C - You're unable to even attempt to prove Mattogno's thesis is wrong. You're just claiming it is without demonstrating how. Worthless.
D. Here: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=73474#p73474

"another location"? Jews came from where Jews were. If they came at all. Again, from the beginning,

Gibberish.

Love the fake tattoo, don't you?

Mattogno says it looks bit odd = proof for Hannover that it's fake.

And hey, can you show us these "reports"?

Demand for spoonfeeding of documents, ones widely available on the internet.

So why then are Kramer, Pressac, Schmaltz and other phantom "documents" included in Mattogno's work on alleged gassings at Natzweiler?

Unbelievable. You don't even know what Mattogno's book was written in response to!

Mattogno is "preposterous" here because he does not back up what he claims. Not good.

No, it's you that doesn't back up what you claim. And, yes: it's not good—although it's all too familiar with you.

Again, got "documents"?

More spoonfeeding requests.

BTW, there are no verifiable studies showing traces of phosgene on / in any of the laughable claimed human remains.

Says the man who's published work on the Natzweiler gassings extents to this:
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8503

But hey, who needs science? Right, Rabbit?

Not you. Nor basic research, nor even a basic knowledge of the topic.

Again, the claimed forensic reports which are no where to be found.

Says a man who's never looked for them.

Great rabbit, you post a blurry picture of cadaver of unknown origin and unknown location with someone's French language typing below it. Now what about it backs up your position exactly?
Provenance, provenance, provenance.

I cited the source, you missed it.

And as Mattogno says, got to wonder about that 'tattoo'.

Not too much though eh Hannover, not enough to actually do any research.

The supposed tattoo-fakers did well to choose that particular number, considering that it was a genuine number tattooed on a male Auschwitz inmate on March 13, 1943.

Indeed, very simple to do. Get a real number, use it. Again, you're ignoring Mattogno. I quoted what he said, you curiously ignored it.

No, I didn't, I referred directly to it: "Mattogno's opinion that the tattoo doesn't look quite right, is *evidence* enough for you that its fake!"
You dodged that.
Care to show how the French fakers got hold of a suitable Auschwitz no.?

Wrong. The photos, which were submitted to the IMT as NO 807, and are easily found on the internet. Faurisson claims Professor René Fabre's report is missing from the records of the French military Struthof-Natzweiler trial; but the document signed by Profs. Piédelièvre, Simonin and Dr. Fourcade which mentions Fabre's findings is to be found with the trial records—again according to Faurisson. The trial records are in an archive in France, no doubt freely available to anyone who makes the effort to go see them.

And I guess that's why you nor anyone else can show us these phantom pictures. You now say that there is a document which "mentions" some phantom "findings", but there is no actual "findings". Now that is laughable. This is truly getting better by the minute.
Show us what you claim exists, Rabbit.

No surprise that you're unfamiliar with Faurisson's writings on Natzweiler too. And more spoonfeeding requests.

Presumably you're referring to the June 21, 1943, letter Mattogno mentions on page 222. But Sievers never wrote to Hirt on June 21, 1943, he wrote a letter to Eichmann that day; a letter which conforms with what Mattogno claims about it. Mattogno or his translator erred here it seems.

Sievers' June 21, 1943, letter to Eichammn was submitted to the IMT as NO-087; another document easily found on the internet.

Again, show us the "easily found" actual letter, can you?

Spoonfeeding request.

And why didn't Mattogno show us this "letter"?

Complaint about lack of spoonfeeding.

Talk is cheap, Rabbit.

And googling Nuremberg documents is real easy.

I say again:

Actually, most of these you're saying for the first time.

- Fake tattoo, OK then.

- And why can't we actually see photos and forensic reports of the alleged "corpses found towards the end of the Second World War at the Anatomical Institute of Strasburg University"?

- May I remind The Rabbit about the very problematic nature of the so called 'Auschwitz Kalendarium'.

- Do we have an actual copy of the 'letter which Sievers sent to Prof. Hirt' to review?

- Yet we see no such verified 'Jewish' body parts and we see no "judicial autopsy" report. Nothing.

- Any found body parts could have an endless number of explanations. Of course human parts are quite common, normal in research institutions, stored in jars, etc.

- A claimed mass murder, but all unverified physical remains are hidden away from prying eyes, legally required procedures are never shown to have been completed.

- Note that the mentioned 'jars containing autopsy samples' were never introduced into any criminal trial proceedings. The results of that claimed autopsy were not published, the alleged contents were never shown. Then there is no proof offered by them that the alleged Struthof gassings occurred.

-Why aren't the 'labels with registration numbers' shown? In fact, why aren't all the jars set out and made available for scrutiny?

-Instead, everything is given to a Jewish organization to hide away, of course.

Points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were addressed previously, and you genuinely couldn't comprehend what I wrote (due to your lack of knowledge on Natzweiler), or you conveniently dodged.

Point 6 is true

Point 7a is nonsense—when is joe public given access to any human remains?; 7b is your speculation; you can't show it to be true

Point 8a: so what—if it's even true; 8b1 is true; 8b2 is speculation—you've not checked the French military trial records to see whether the defence counsels viewed it or not; 8c: who's "them"?

Point 9a: Where do you want them to published, on the codoh forum no doubt?

Point 10: They're human remains, they deserve a decent burial/cremation.

[hermod]

I've arranged to see another French Belgian newspaper this week re. Breendonk—which I'll need your help on again, if that's okay. Plus I'll try to get to the National Archives soon to check the British investigation files for Natzweiler; perhaps there some note of Dr. Fabre's report to be found there.

I'll be glad to help you with further French translations.

Perhaps. That would be great to find the whole Fabre report in British files. But it's probably asking too much.